Scoring:
Not significant;
Low Significance;
Moderate Significance;
Medium-high Significance;
High Significance;
Exceptional Significance
Evidence A: La Sierra Norte de Oaxaca es de gran relevancia para la biodiversidad y de altisima riqueza de los pueblos indígenas méxicanos. Está descrita como una Región terrestre prioritaria.
Evidence B:part of hot spot
Scoring:
>50 t/ha - Low;
50 - 100 t/ha - Moderate;
>100 t/ha - High
Evidence A: Según mapa. Hay zonas que están en Bajo pero en su mayoría se evidencia el color correspondiente a moderado.
Evidence B:from irrecoverable carbon map
Scoring:
IPLC governance (rights and institutions) not evident;
Project areas are marginally under IPLC governance (spatially or politically);
Project areas are partially under IPLC systems of governance (spatially or politically);
Project areas are largely under IPLC governance, but IPLC rights and/or institutions face significant constraints;
Project areas are held and managed under IPLC governance systems, with some limitations;
Project areas are held and managed under strong and active IPLC governance systems
Evidence A: Si de acuerdo a sus sistemas propios de organización y gobierno.
Evidence B:there seem to be strong community action that has resulted in in strong governance systems and legal systems that guarantee it
Scoring:
No explanation given of unique significance to IPLCs;
Significance of site(s) vaguely described;
Unique significance of project site(s) clearly explained
Evidence A: Es suficientemente explicito.
Evidence B:The communities have been able to sustain and revitalize governance systems and livelihood patterns that are intimately connected to the area that have been recognise nationally and internationally
Scoring:
No evident threats;
Low threats;
Moderate threats;
Medium-high threats;
High threats;
Requires urgent action
Evidence A: La identificación de amenazas es bien clara asi como su justificación.
Evidence B:the threats seem to be deforestation, water loss, climate change and growing extractive interests. The communities have been able to defend themselves against these through collective action, strengthening governance and creating economic opporutunities. Without consolidating the latter two they remain vulnerable.
Scoring:
Legal and policy frameworks in project areas undermine IPLC governance (either actively or through absence);
Legal and policy frameworks recognize limited rights for IPLCs over their lands and/or resources;
Legal and policy frameworks recognize rights over lands and resources but with constraints (e.g., lack implementing regulations);
Legal and policy frameworks actively promote the recognition of IPLC governance
Evidence A: A nivel normativo si existe suficientes condiciones para el desarrollo de acciones y gobernanza, sin embargo, siempre existen vacios, por esta razón le doy esa calificación.
Evidence B:high level of organization; initiatives to bolster territorial planning for sustainable development; and initiatives to diversify the economy offer a solid foundation to build on.
Scoring:
National or sub-national governments are actively opposed to IPLC-led conservation;
National or sub-national governments have recognized the importance of IPLC-led conservation;
National or sub-national governments have implemented some support for IPLC-led conservation;
National or sub-national governments are actively engaged in the promotion of IPLC rights and IPLC-led conservation
Evidence A: Si existen algunas iniciativas que aglutinan diversos niveles de interacción con el estado y con otras asociaciones/agremiaciones.
Evidence B:Plans and actions related to international commitments as reflected in the Estrategia Nacional sobre Biodiversidad de México (ENBioMex) que incluye un Plan de Acción 2016-2030 and national laws which recognise rights in the area of influence and specific state funding mechanisms suggest support
Scoring:
No IPLC-led conservation initiatives have been implemented;
Few IPLC-led conservation projects have been implemented in pilot stages only;
Some IPLC-led conservation projects have been implemented beyond pilot stages;
Relevant IPLC-led conservation projects have been well established for many years
Evidence A: Si, de acuerdo a la descripción.
Evidence B:The communities have been very active. The level of collective action; initiatives to bolster territorial planning for sustainable development; and initiatives to diversify the economy offer a solid foundation to build on.
Scoring:
Few to no complementary projects/investment;
Complementary projects/investments are small, or are tangentially related to project goals;
Complementary Projects/investments align strongly with project goals and investments are substantial
Evidence A: Se describen varias iniciativas. En términos concretos de cofinanciación se menciona capital social y de infraestructura para el desarrollo del proyecto.
Evidence B:Two of the projects listed seem very relevant and national funding schemes are identified
Scoring:
Weakly aligned;
Partially aligned;
Well aligned;
Exceptionally well aligned
Evidence A: El desarrollo de la propuesat está directamente enfocada para el fortalecimiento de la gobernanza de los sitios participantes y de los pueblos zapotecas y chinantecos.
Evidence B:Three of the IC initiative are addressed. The project revolves around safeguarding forests in relation to traditional medicine, increasing knowledge and appreciation for and developing economic opportunities around the same.
Scoring:
The objectives and approach for this project lack clarity and cohesion, and/or do not appear to be realistic for the context;
Activities & results defined but logic (Theory of Change) is incomplete;
Activities and results are well-defined and cohesive but some aspects require clarification;
The project has clear objectives and a cohesive approach with relevant activities for the context and timeline
Evidence A: El proyecto está bien definido y tiene elementos muy claros que alcanzar. Inclusive el nivel de detalle permite determinar el alcance y lo que buscan desarrollar.
Evidence B:The project revolves around safeguarding biodiversity and indigenous knowledge in relation to traditional medicine, increasing knowledge and appreciation for and developing economic opportunities around the same with particular attention to the participation and benefits for women and youth. These seem very cohesive.
Scoring:
Objectives and activities do not clearly address identified threats and opportunities;
Contributions to addressing the threats and opportunities are low;
Contributions to addressing threats and enabling conditions are slightly over-ambitious;
The impact on threats and enabling conditions can be realistically accomplished and are sufficiently ambitious for the projects' context
Evidence A: Me parece que el diseño permite abordar los aspectos que ellos identificaron como amenazas y están enfocados en fortalecer los medios de vida de las poblaciones.
Evidence B:The project revolves around safeguarding biodiversity and indigenous knowledge in relation to traditional medicine, increasing knowledge and appreciation for and developing economic opportunities around the same with particular attention to the participation and benefits for women and youth. This would seem in greater commitment to sustain the kind of actions that have served the communities well
Scoring:
Activities/results not aligned with EoI range of investment;
Activities/results Partially aligned with EoI range of investment ;
Activities/results Well aligned with EoI range of investment ;
Activities/results Exceptionally well aligned with EoI range of investment
Evidence A: Habría que desarrollar el presupuesto en detalle pero es bastante posible.
Evidence B:NA
Scoring:
None;
Small;
Moderate;
Significant
Evidence A: Creo que están alineados y pueden ser apoyados con acciones locales y otras iniciativas, sin embargo, el cofinanciamiento que ellos mencionan es de capital social y de infraestructura por lo cual no estaría tan claro si cuentan con fuentes adicionales de cofinanciamiento.
Evidence B:The projects and sources identified are general and moderate
Scoring:
Not provided;
Very Low (below 10,000 Ha);
Moderate (between 100,000 - 500,000 Ha);
High (between 500,000 - 1,000,000 Ha);
Very high above 1,000,000 Ha
Evidence A: Se mencionan 62.950 Ha.
Evidence B:as indicted in table in question 12
Scoring:
No provided cultural or livelihood indicators for the project;
Indicators proposed but are not clearly aligned with project goals;
Indicators proposed and are moderately aligned with project goals;
Additional cultural and/or livelihood indicators clearly derive from project goals
Evidence A: Están identificados y creo que son adecuados con el diseño pero creo que faltan algunos indicadores resultantes del proceso de implementación que podrían incluirse.
Evidence B:the indicators are well aligned but livelihood indicators were not provided
Scoring:
Vision for long-term sustainability not provided;
This project does not seem to have a clear long-term impact;
This project will create medium-term benefits for biodiversity and IPLC governance, which future funding will hopefully build upon;
This project will ensure long-term benefits to biodiversity and IPLC systems of governance
Evidence A: Me parece que si está enfocado al fortalecimiento de la gobernanza y de los medios de vida de estas poblaciones, sin embargo el enfoque de sosteniblidad no me queda claro ya que requiere que se sigan construyendo a medida que se implementa el proyecto.
Evidence B:The investment in youth and women, the instrumentation of safeguards and economic opportunities are proposed. economic benefits from traditional medicine will yet be determined
Scoring:
Contributions not provided;
The project is weakly related to either national priorities;
The project appears to be tangentially related to national priorities;
The proposal reflects an understanding of the national policy priorities and clearly positions the project in relation to those priorities
Evidence A: Si, la propuesta está alineada con lo que detallan ( Plan estratégico de la CBD) y para la estrategia de biodiversidad de México.
Evidence B:The project is aligned with: Meta 18 Plan Estratégico para la Diversidad Biológica 2011-2020 and;
Scoring:
Gender mainstreaming approach is absent;
Gender mainstreaming approach is weak;
Gender mainstreaming approach is moderately thought through (if there are a few activities as 'add ons');
Significant and well-thought through approach to gender mainstreaming
Evidence A: El diseño en la propuesta está muy bien contemplada. La respuesta de la pregunta 15 también. En ambos casos se evidencia que se ha realizado una integración técnica y que además de haberla integrado ha incorporado un enfoque de jóvenes a través de acciones intergeneracionales que son fundamentales para la reproducción de la cultura. Es fundamental este enfoque y lo han integrado adecuadamente.
Evidence B:the participation of women is a central goal of the project
Scoring:
None demonstrated;
Low demonstrated potential;
Moderate demonstrated potential;
Medium-high demonstrated potential;
High demonstrated potential;
Exceptional demonstrated potential
Evidence A: Se plantea claramente un potencial para la mobilización de replicas y de compartir resultados a mayores escalas, sin embargo no la considero innovadora.
Evidence B:The centrla role of traditional medicine is innovative
Scoring:
IPLC appear to be beneficiaries only;
Combination/partnership of IPLC organizations and NGOs, and plans to build IPLC capacity over the project term are clear;
IPLC-led approach, NGOs in more limited, defined roles (such as fiduciary);
Fully IPLC composed and led approach
Evidence A: Es una Red Indígena dedicada a acciones vinculadas a turismo y su implementación será de los asociados de las comunidades. No hay asociados externos.
Evidence B:The oranization is a coordinating IPLC and member organizations are local IPLCs
Scoring:
None demonstrated;
Limited demonstration of relevant on-ground leadership;
Demonstrated on-ground leadership relevant to the proposed work;
Exceptional and long-standing on-ground leadership relevant to the proposed work
Evidence A: Tienen varios proyectos e iniciativas que los manifiestan como alineados y en colaboración con ellos. Sin embargo, no es muy claro su nivel de liderazgo en varias de esas iniciativas.
Evidence B:The organization is an IPCL that has coordinating experience at national and global level. AT the local level it has experience with work such as: En los años 2017, 2018 y 2019 facilitamos el proceso para la realización de 15 Protocolos Comunitarios Bioculturales en igual número de comunidades, en coordinación con las Autoridades Comunitarias, el Programa de Naciones Unidas para el Desarrollo-México, y la Secretaría del Medioambiente y Recursos Naturales.
Scoring:
No partners defined;
No IPLC partners identified;
IPLC organizations are listed as implementing partners but without clear scope (roles in project design or governance);
IPLC organizations are listed as implementing partners with clear roles (in project design or governance);
Strong IPLC partnerships that play a central role in design, governance, and implementation of the project;
Strong IPLC partnerships have a central role in design, governance and implementation of the project and linkages with national or regional IPO networks
Evidence A: Me parece que el enfoque y el diseño es para la realización de acciones concretas del liderazgo (y fortalecimiento) de la red. Y por lo tanto, la red y sus asociados.
Evidence B:It is national coordinator with experience working at local leve as demonsrated in the following experience: En los años 2017, 2018 y 2019 facilitamos el proceso para la realización de 15 Protocolos Comunitarios Bioculturales en igual número de comunidades, en coordinación con las Autoridades Comunitarias, el Programa de Naciones Unidas para el Desarrollo-México, y la Secretaría del Medioambiente y Recursos Naturales.
Scoring:
No skills demonstrated;
The skills and experiences outlined have little or no relation to the project activities;
There is some lack of clarity or some gaps in the capacities necessary to implement the project;
The activities clearly show how they plan to fill capacity gaps over the course of the project;
They seem to have adequate skills and capacity for the project but do not have experience with GEF projects;
The lead organization and project partners clearly communicate that they have all the skills and experience necessary to implement the project activities. Also, have past experience with GEF funded projects.
Evidence A: Se contesta afirmativamente pero no es claro si han ejecutado fondos GEF.
Evidence B:Has experience with actions at national, international and local level. and has indicated a set of qualified professionals that would be involved in the project implementation
Scoring:
Very limited (no criteria met);
Some capacity but would require support (1/3 criteria);
Moderate capacity (2/3 criteria met);
Very strong (all criteria met) with demonstrated past performance
Evidence A: Idem, arriba.
Evidence B:at least one of the projects is over 200,000US and has produced audits
Scoring:
Answered no;
Answered yes but with weak or lacking explanation to the extent;
Answered yes with clear explanation of the extent
Evidence A: Si pero creo que la experiencia es con otro tipo de fondos.
Evidence B:yes.